Vanguard

Whether or not you use Multipowers in your magic system depends on how you want the magic system to work.  If the spell-casters have a relatively static set of spells and it requires a lot of effort to learn a new spell, then having them pay for each one individually makes sense and it allows a fairly easy way to balance magic-users with straight-up warriors.
 
If you want wizards to be able to pick up new spells fairly easily and have a wide repertoire, then a Multipower or even VPP makes sense.  BUT you need to impose some limitation on it to keep spell-casters from getting too powerful relative to characters who don't use magic.  It might be a low cap on active points in spells.  You might insist all magic has to be bought at x3 END,  or at 0 DCV, or all spells require rare and expensive consumable spell components, or the minimum casting time is 1 minute, or whatever flavor of magic you want.  This is more challenging than the first scenario because getting the balance right is more ambiguous than when you just base it on how many points they spend on each ability. 
 
The key is to figure out how you want magic to work in your world and what limitations prevent wizards from ruling the world and use that to inform the structure of your magic system.

Yes it is. So the point then the system isn’t flawed as much players/GM who abuse the system.

"How and why did you learn that spell?" is equivalent to "How and why do you have a laser pistol?" No, you cannot just spend an experience point and learn any old spell. When your character was created, all their spells have a stated or implied origin in your character's magical training. That doesn't disappear just because you have an experience point. Further, if spells are supposed to be something that are hard to learn, you aren't necessarily entitled to spend those points willy-nilly. Learning a new spell every other month might be unreasonable. Just because you have points to spend on a Follower doesn't mean you can suddenly acquire a squire while traveling through the desert. You might be able to, but you have to justify it.

It isn't any different. The point of the random gadget multipower is to be enabling.  The point of not allowing a multipower for spells is not to be enabling. Gadget multipowers make sense if you want characters to have a bag of gadgets they can use one at a time. Multipower spells make sense if you want to have characters able to use a variety of spells, one at a time.
There are several main issues with spell Multipowers, even before you get into thematics. First, a battle with a mage on each side can quickly turn into Calvinball. That is, they start spitballing increasingly bizarre spell constructs at each other until someone rolls poorly or someone hits about the situationally useful spell construct. Second, spells can be had cheap. While that is not inherently gamebreaking, it's annoying. A character built around such shenanigans can trivialize a greater number of obstacles and can step on more toes. Third, character complexity shoots through the roof. A twenty-slot Multipower is not a joy in play. Fourth, every single slot needs to be vetted as its own power.
I'm not going to belabor thematics. I don't like magic to be too "easy" in the first place. Putting a bunch of easy spells into a framework that makes things easy is not something I find appealing. I don't want to run a game where a character goes, oh, I switch to this slot and cast this spell. Then I switch and cast this spell. With every spell being basically a weapon, a can opener, or a frustrating defense. Even comic book mages like Doctor Strange don't work this way. He has dozens of commonly used spells, but similar spells have similar limitations. Some of his magic requires his Orb. Some of it is personal magic, some of it is dimensional.
As far as thematics, the Multipower system leaves very little room for ritual magic.
I'm not saying the Multipower-of-whatever-spells system is wrong, I just think it has significant gameplay and thematic drawbacks. If you are going to allow a bunch of versatile super-mages as PCs, I think that does raise some questions about what else do you allow. Why shouldn't the fighter have a magical Multipower as well? What if someone wants to play a frost giant? Can the deceptive rogue have PRE 30? If you want to run a game where the PCs are fairly unlimited characters who can steamroller over a bunch of challenges before eventually succumbing to their inherent weaknesses, you certainly can.
In general, a Multipower that is unlimited in scope is just less magical, and hence less desirable to me.

Anyone can make a list of abusive abilities.  That doesn't prove anything about what might happen in an actual game.  

I've been following this thread and I have to say, you're not discussing the rules or balance. 
 
You are discussing setting/genre convention preferences as if they were rules.  This with a heavy dose of D&D class restrictions.
 
I have seen MP's used by warrior types with the slots being special swordsmanship maneuvers making them every bit as effective as a mage.  At least in close combat.
 
The real issue here is if you are going to limit warriors to be semi-"realistic", then you have to do the same (somehow) with the magical types.  It is not that MP's inherently unbalance anything.  It is imposed restrictions on one type of character has nerf'd them when compared to the other. 
 
If the intention is to restrict non-magicals to real world (or near real world) levels, then magical builds will either not exist or they will be overpowering. 
 
MP's are a normal and easy way to build spells.
MP's are also a great way to build combat abilities for warriors.
 
Artificially limiting one use does not mean the other use is suddenly broken.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ditto.
 
I'm pretty sure we _all_ get that, and got it immediately.  
 
 
 
Agreed again.  Not only is it not really a good argument, it's become the standard argument:  "Let's do some math and demonstrate why this is a horrible idea."
 
We can all do the math.  If we GM (and I get the feeling that the majority of us here who still play actually _are_ GMs, but I freely admit and accept that I'm completely wrong here), we not only _can_ do the math, but probably _have_ done the math, and done it _several times_ over the years.  If there are problems, and we're still allowing multipowers anyway, there's a better-than-good-chance that either 1) we've already got things in place that prevent those problems or 2) we haven't found these hypothetical issues to actually be problems.
 
Or, as N-B puts more succinctly:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These are also valid ideas.  Here's another:  the character sheets we've all seen list at least ten maneuvers that all characters get _for free_.  The typical fantasy magic user has lower STR and DEX than his beefier two-fisted, weapon-wielding counterparts.  These ten things are useless to him, unless your campaign features a lot of beating up small children (which any wizard you ever created could, at any point in his career, do better than Voldemort ever did; I guarantee it).  Even then, the bigger beefy guys are going to do it better.
 
No one bats an eye.  So what?  You _chose_ to play a character for whom STR x 1.5 meant less than three normal dice.  Boo-hoo.  You _chose_ to play a character who's OCV is so low you declare "I dodge!" and the party clown says "Yes!  That will more than double your OCV!"  So what?  You _chose_ that!
 
Why would you chose that if you weren't trading off for something else?  At full price, you're not going to be able to start with any spells that really justify such a deal:  I built a character in such a way as to make those maneuvers effectively useless, but it would be wrong of me to invest the points that I might have put there in some other form of utility?  _Then_ we have a problem?   "Hey, if I shank my STR, DEX, CON, and maybe gank my SPD just a bit, I can still potentially have three whole spells to start with!"
 
"Nope.  That would be wrong.  Cut those spells in half, and pay more for them.  _Then_ it's fair."
 
 
 
 
Low Fantasy is my preference, too, specifically _low powered_ Low Fantasy, but I've run games across the whole spectrum.  In the end, it's more about what concessions you and the players are willing to make to each other to get some reasonable trade-off of the game you all want to play.  But yes: your point is totally taken.
 
 
Even then, the discussion is done to death to the point that I usually don't even chime in any more.  My chain only gets yanked when someone says "well that's how it is in D&D, so _obviously_ that's how it has to be in your game, too.
 
Screw D&D.  If I wanted to play D&D, I wouldn't have thrown it away thirty-odd years ago.  It was crap then, and from browsing and skimming over the years, it has become crap with high production values.  So what?
 
 
 

Mind like Pool: invisibility to Mental Sense Group reds. Stealth Roll cost 20 pts. UMA 4th pg. 96.
 
I have UMA 4th and I’m not afraid to use it!

The juxtaposition of "real world" and "Captain America" was good for a laugh.

I suspect you would likely fracture a group playing this. Real world politics these days is insanely divisive.

And I would be on the Harbinger of Justice's side and with him.  There are no excuses for rioting and looting, nor with sedition and subversion against the police.

Unless seeing the power grants some way to circumvent it, I can't see getting a Limitation for this.

Bar fight would be great! You can have Normal damage-day a tankard that adds +1D6 to STR. Oh I throw that tankard well that’s say a 2D6 Blast  let’s look at Range. I throw my beer in his face-that’s a Flash attack! He pulls a dagger well now that’s a killing attack.

Also stay away from Martial maneuvers until you’re more comfortable with the Standard Maneuvers. That being said, I would encourage you to play mock battles when not gaming and go-let’s try this! I still do that.

It depends on what genre you are playing, but in general you can skip:
 
Hit Locations, and partial armour protection
Presence attacks - these allow exceptions to the order of play in combat
Knockback/Knockdown
Turn modes for movement
Pushing - implied by not using End anyway
 
You could also make sure every character has the same Speed characteristic. Then you don't need to use the Speed Chart apart from periodic post-Segment 12 Recoveries. If everyone has, say, 3 Spd (or 5, for superheroes), then "post-Segment 12" becomes "after every three (or 5) phases".
 
Also avoid complex power constructs. Simple characters can be just as powerful and interesting anyway, in many cases.

Yep.  That's me, too, and most of my players.  Not all, but most.
 

After submitting my vote, I realized I should have also selected Other - Group of friends / associates.  For instance, a college student whose gaming group members sometimes get into trouble, or a teacher whose students have some bad luck.  I suppose they could fall into "Non-biological family", but they're not really family. 
 
But yeah, I think most of my players have selected either their character's kids or their parents.  Though honestly, they don't tend to pick DNPC too often.  They're heavier on Psych Lims and Hunteds.

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

Same here.
We also had Heroes trying to "aim" the target into things with knockback. 
It's superheroes and the game is supposed t be flexible.  We are not playing D&D or worse Pathfinder.  Not having a detailed rule doesn't mean it can't happen. 

Exactly.
 
That's been what I've seen in the games I've played in.  If the GM sets a point/dc/stat cap.  THAT is what the players build too.
 
Even if the GM gives a stat range of say, 20-35 . . . the players, or certain players, will build to 35.  Same with attacks.  12D6 attack, character has 12D6 attack.  X active point limit?  Powers are at X active points.
 
 
Usually the same in the games I've played in.  Unless there's a conceptual reason as to why one or the other should be lower, they're always bought to the same levels.

for the first part I think were talking from slightly different viewpoints. I am thinking about the game at the table with players trying to describe their actions. When I pick up a hero book and read the section on ships, I see the write up wall of text, all kinds of numbers. But I don't see a single thing that will actually help a player play his character on that ship. I've played many wargames, my favorite being those of ship to ship action, and for those I can see detailed stats as I order each ship to attack the other boom boom bam bam. But none of the information on that "write up" actually applies to character actions. For me it would be far more useful to have a diagram or deck plan so the players could actually visualize where they're at and an abbreviated set of modifiers to be applied to their skills when they're doing something with the ship, such as piloting, damage control or other actions. In the Alien Wars supplement the UES Antarctic Class Light Cruiser write up is pretty much useless to me. Nothing in the book gives me any concept of its actual layout, or anything about what a player character could actually interact with. It is much easier for me to get out a napkin and make up my own ship and give it the name light cruiser.
 
On the second, yes several adventures had maps for vessels in, but those were adventures. Prebuilt set adventures designed for the GM to run for players. What I am talking about is that whenever a book has a ship and it such as the supplement Alien Wars, then that right up at a minimum should be accompanied by a usable reference deck plan. When I play a role playing game I am not playing a tactical wargame. I can play Star Fleet Battles or Seekrieg and have a heck of a lot of fun, but that is a different thing. A completely different thing, then asking Bob "what does your character do?" and getting a response that involves the player utilizing his character skills.
 
 

Unless the space involved is going to be used for combat, I tend to agree with Spence. What's the point of maps made to miniatures scale if it's just for reference? However, if the environment is going to host a battle, then out comes the vinyl battlemat and the minis and a to-scale drawing of the space.

I find ship stats and animal stats useful. I also like ship maps. 

Fair enough.
 
Personally, I don't believe that all the people who got to live full lives in safety and freedom due to the actions of heroes in any era, count for nothing just because that era came to an end. In some places and times its appropriate for those heroes to be paladins, in others costumed supers, in others starship troopers.
 
But that's my perspective, which in no way invalidates yours.

No objection to your disagreeing with me, Duke.   I've heard other people express dislike for the unified Hero timeline, but yours is the most intense expression I've come across. I'm curious, is that dislike based on intellectual objection to it, or is it a more instinctive rejection?
 
For my part, I'm inclined to think of the sci-fi future of the Hero Universe not so much descended from the superhero setting, as the latter representing one small era preceding the former. Given that superhumans disappear in the future, there's no need to refer to or even acknowledge their past existence if using just the space/sci-fi elements. By the Terran Empire period Earth's superhumans are generally regarded as mythic figures with no real basis in fact. OTOH I personally like to draw that historical through-line. It gives me a sense of continuity, and a deep well from which I can draw for plot elements and even characters. But as I mentioned on the Turakian Age thread, my mind likes to find linkages. YMM legimately V.